IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v32y2005i4p309-316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulating GM crops in the Netherlands: precaution as societal-ethical evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Piet Schenkelaars

Abstract

Dutch regulators have generally made a sharp distinction between scientific-technical and societal-ethical aspects of regulating agri-biotechnology, but many developments have blurred or challenged that distinction. For field releases, risk assessment depended on agro-ecological norms regarding what plausible effects would be unacceptable. In the mid-1990s, stakeholder controversies continued over how to regulate genetically modified (GM) crops, as well as their food and feed use. Since the late 1990s, opposition by public-interest groups has led to new priorities for risk research, and tighter criteria for evidence. Involvement of non-governmental organisations, whether or not actively sought or appreciated by Dutch regulators, contributed to analytical rigour in risk assessment. Public debate also resulted in proposals for an integral societal-ethical evaluation framework (ISEEF) for biotechnology products, and market demands for the co-existence of GM, conventional and organic crops. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Piet Schenkelaars, 2005. "Regulating GM crops in the Netherlands: precaution as societal-ethical evaluation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 309-316, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:4:p:309-316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154305781779416
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:4:p:309-316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.